OpenWebMail Packages for CentOS 4 + BlueQuartz

[forhire]

I've been running BlueQuartz as a replacement for our Cobalt Raq hosting servers. It has worked well. About a year ago I decided I needed Openwebmail for it. The package didn't exist so I wrote something. Works well. If you host you might find it worth while. I also have a ClamAV package for it also.

http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire/owm.html

[forhire]

I'm currently working on an x86_64 version of openwebmail for bluequartz. http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire/owm.html has the latest test version available for download.

[cybercytes]

I installed nuonce CentOS v4.2 / BlueQuartz ISO Image v3.5.
All worked well.

After several days of testing, I installed your OWM pkg and am now nolonger receiving mail from the outside.
BlueQuartz-CentOS4-OpenWebmail.2.51-1.010.pkg

I can send out, but outside senders are getting the following error message when sending to me:

xx.xx.xx.xx does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 <xx@xx.com>... Relaying denied
Giving up

I've spent numerous hours searching the net, but none found spell-out the actual cure.

Your help greatly appreciated!

[forhire]

I can send out, but outside senders are getting the following error message when sending to me:

xx.xx.xx.xx does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 <xx@xx.com>... Relaying denied
Giving up

OWM modifies the virtualusers table using a replace in owusers.sh. Are your mail addresses using fqdn or just domain name? For example user@www.domain.com becomes user@domain.com. I wonder if it's mudging your address.

[forhire]

are you certain that you have the mail setup correctly within the bq admin to accept mail by domain? the default is fqdn. in the bq admin, verify that your domain name is entered under "services", "email" in the "Email Server Aliases" box.

[DeepWoods]

OK, this doesn't pertain to BQ at all but I've been scratching my head for awhile now trying to get speedyCGI working again. We recenty upgraded a RH8 server to CentOS4.3 and I've been fighting with speedy ever since! I found where you mention the "500 Internal Server Error" that I've been fighting and also you came up with a solution.

2005-11-13 Added SpeedyCGI support
I finally got SpeedyCGI working under CentOS. If you look back I pounded on this a few months ago without luck.
Turned out to be a change in the order that perl allows variables to be passed.

So.....what I'm wondering is.....would you care to explain exactly how you fixed this problem?

Thanks,
Rob

[forhire]

CentOS just wants speedy called out like this:
#!/usr/bin/speedy_suidperl

Not like in RH9:
#!/usr/bin/speedy_suidperl -T -- -T/tmp/speedy

I'm not sure if this was the best way to do it but it works. If you discover better way please let me know.

This is a script I use to convert to speedy:

# Enable SpeedyCGI support by forhire 2005/11/13
cp /usr/bin/speedy /usr/bin/speedy_suidperl
chmod 4555 /usr/bin/speedy_suidperl
cd /var/www/cgi-bin/openwebmail
for name in openwebmail*.pl ; do
cp -a $name ${name}.old
sed -e "s/suidperl -T/speedy_suidperl/" < ${name}.old > ${name}
rm ${name}.old
done

Hope this helps, Randy

[DeepWoods]

CentOS just wants speedy called out like this:
#!/usr/bin/speedy_suidperl

Not like in RH9:
#!/usr/bin/speedy_suidperl -T -- -T/tmp/speedy

I'm not sure if this was the best way to do it but it works. If you discover better way please let me know.

This is a script I use to convert to speedy:

# Enable SpeedyCGI support by forhire 2005/11/13
cp /usr/bin/speedy /usr/bin/speedy_suidperl
chmod 4555 /usr/bin/speedy_suidperl
cd /var/www/cgi-bin/openwebmail
for name in openwebmail*.pl ; do
cp -a $name ${name}.old
sed -e "s/suidperl -T/speedy_suidperl/" < ${name}.old > ${name}
rm ${name}.old
done

Hope this helps, Randy

Yep. Helped alot. I had read somewhere about speedy not liking the command line arguments for some reason. I didn't think that included not being able to run in taint mode. I tried almost every combo except zero arguments thinking that taint mode "should" work for sure. Thanks for the help! Now I get to weigh security concerns versus speed.

Rob